The operative Hebrew words in Zechariah 12:10 are ELAY ET ASERDAQARU ("They shall look upon me whom they have pierced"). S.R. Driver recommends the MT emendation ELAYW ("to him" instead of "upon me") and Driver insists that more than fifty instances in the Hebrew text buttress this reading (See Driver, The Minor Prophets, p. 266).
Even if one reads "upon" or "to me" rather than "to him," it is still possible to understand the text as a reference to the representative of YHWH, that is, His shepherd (compare Zech 11:12-13; 13:7).
Another friend of mine once noted:
"Et-asher [--> 'whom'] is chosen here, as in Jer. 38:9, in the place of the simple 'asher' [whom], to mark 'asher' more clearly as an accusative, since the simple 'asher' might also be rendered 'who pierced (me).'" -- (K-D, Volume 10, page 609.)
Thus, one possible function of ET in Zechariah 12:10 is to clarify and specify the referential significance of the personal object, the one whom is pierced.
Friday, May 10, 2024
Reading Zechariah 12:10---How?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
87 comments:
JPS 2023
וְשָׁפַכְתִּי֩ עַל־בֵּ֨ית דָּוִ֜יד וְעַ֣ל ׀ יוֹשֵׁ֣ב יְרוּשָׁלַ֗͏ִם ר֤וּחַ חֵן֙ וְתַ֣חֲנוּנִ֔ים וְהִבִּ֥יטוּ אֵלַ֖י אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָ֑רוּ וְסָפְד֣וּ עָלָ֗יו כְּמִסְפֵּד֙ עַל־הַיָּחִ֔יד וְהָמֵ֥ר עָלָ֖יו כְּהָמֵ֥ר עַֽל־הַבְּכֽוֹר׃
But I will fill the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of pity and compassion; and they shall lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first-born.
https://brill.com/display/book/9789004229143/B9789004229143_008.xml
The resolution of this issue seems pretty clear to me:
*About 50 Hebrew manuscripts have "on him" not "on me."
*John was clearly dependent on such manuscripts, as the "him" reading is consistent with ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν at John 19:37.
*John wrote under God's inspiration.
*John therefore gives us the correct reading.
Sean
I am not saying your are wrong, by any means but you fail to consider one thing:
Johns manuscripts are also vulnerable to copyist alterations - Just look at John 1:18
"Johns manuscripts are also vulnerable to copyist alterations - Just look at John 1:18"
Have you checked to see if there are any such alterations with respect to the relevant part of John 19:37, and how plausible alternatives are considered to be? I'm having trouble locating my textual commentary this morning, and I'm in a bit of a rush, but I have yet to find a translation that is based on a reading other than ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν.
Sean
Admittedly no I have not. Looking at Metzgars commentary ( the only one I have immediate access too, I’ll check Robertson and Barclays online ) doesn’t have it in..
Biblehub didn’t really have anything of substance
John 19:37
Ellicott's Commentary: They shall look on him whom they pierced.—The words, as they occur in the Authorised version, of the prophecy are, “They shall look upon Me whom they have pierced,” but the reading which St. John has followed is that of many MSS., and is adopted by many Rabbinic (as Rashi and Kimchi) and many modern authorities (as Ewald and Geiger). The Greek translation (LXX.) of the prophet avoided the strong word “pierced,” as applied to Jehovah, and substituted for it “insulted.” St. John translates the original Hebrew freely for himself (comp. Revelation 1:7), and gives the undoubted meaning of the Hebrew word, translating it by the same Greek word which is used by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. He thinks of the prophecy which spoke of Jehovah as pierced by His people, and sees it fulfilled in the Messiah pierced on the cross.
Gill's Exposition: "in the Hebrew text it is, "upon me whom they have pierced"; the reason of this difference is, because Christ, who is Jehovah, is there speaking prophetically of himself, here the evangelist cites it as fulfilled in him, that is, that part of it which regards the piercing of him [...] From the citation of this passage it appears, that the writers of the New Testament did not always follow the Greek version of the Old Testament, which here renders the words very differently, and very wrongly; but John cites them according to the Hebrew text, even which we now have, and which is an instance of the truth, purity, and integrity of the present Hebrew books of the Old Testament."
Pulpit Commentary: "(εἰς ὅν ἐξεκέντησαν). The original passage is (Zechariah 12:10), אֵלִי אֵתאּאֲשֶׁר דָּקָדוּ, "They shall look upon me whom they pierced." The evangelist altered the ME into HIM, which, as it stands in the old oracle, and regarded as the language of Jehovah, is sufficiently surprising. The LXX. had felt the difficulty, and translated it Ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθ ῶν κατωρχήσαντο, i.e. "They shall look towards me, because they have insulted me." Their repentance and misgiving shall be aroused, because in response for those things which they have done contemptuously against me. It is interesting to see that John is more accurate in his Greek translation of this prophetic passage, viz. ὄψονται or ο{ν, "They shall look" with love and grace and repentance "on him whom (ἐξεκέντησαν) they pierced." This Greek rendering of the Hebrew is followed by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, and is quoted by Justin Martyr; it is also found in Revelation 1:7, forming a link of connection between the Gospel and the Apocalypse."
Zechariah 12:10:
Pulpit Commentary: They shall look upon me whom they have pierced. The Speaker is Jehovah. To "look upon or unto" implies trust, longing, and reverence (comp. Numbers 21:9; 2 Kings 3:14; Psalm 34:5; Isaiah 22:11). We may say generally that the clause intimates that the people, who had grieved and offended God by their sins and ingratitude, should repent and turn to him in faith. But there was a literal fulfilment of this piercing, i.e. slaying (Zechariah 13:3; Lamentations 4:9), when the Jews crucified the Messiah, him who was God and Man, and of whom, as a result of the hypostatic union, the properties of one nature are often predicated of the other. Thus St. Paul says that the Jews crucified "the Lord of glory" (1 Corinthians 2:8), and bids the Ephesian elders "feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28; for the reading Θεοῦ, see the critics). St. John (John 19:37) refers to these words of Zechariah as a prophecy of the Crucifixion (camp. Revelation 1:7). The LXX. renders, Ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς μὲ ἀνθ ῶν κατωχρήσαντο, "They shall look to me because they insulted," either reading the last verb differently, or understanding it figuratively in the sense of assailing with cutting words; but there is no doubt about the true reading and interpretation. Vulgate, Aspicient ad me quem confixerunt. "Me" has been altered in some manuscripts into "him:" but this is an evident gloss received into the text for controversial purposes, or to obviate the supposed impropriety of representing Jehovah as slain by the impious. That St. John seems to sanction this reading is of no critical importance, as he is merely referring to the prophecy historically, and does not profess to give the very wording of the prophet. A suffering Messiah was not an unknown idea in Zechariah's time. He has already spoken of the Shepherd as despised and ill-treated, and a little further on (Zechariah 13:7) he intimates that he is stricken with the sword. The prophecies of Isaiah had familiarized him with the same notion (Isaiah 53, etc.). And when he represents Jehovah as saying, "Me whom they pierced," it is not merely that in killing his messenger and representative they may be said to have killed him, but the prophet, by inspiration, acknowledges the two natures in the one Person of Messiah, even as Isaiah (Isaiah 9:6) called him the "Mighty God," and the psalmists often speak to the same effect (Psalm 2:7; Psalm 45:6, 7; Psalm 110:1, etc.; comp. Micah 5:2).
@Sean Kasabuske
That הבישׂו אלי (wəsāp̲əd̲û ʿālāyw, unto ME) is the original reading, and not אלוו is the original reading, is supported because all ancient authoritative Hebrew translations contain this, not just, for example, the Aleppo Codex, but also the Dead Sea Scrolls. Check: Scroll 4Q80. אלוו is certainly a later Jewish theological distortion.
Notice how this Catholic bible renders Zechariah 12:10 and see the note in the bible:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah+12%3A10&version=NABRE
@Edgar Foster
Then they are wrong, because êlay אֵלַ֖י is clearly first person singular, this reading is also supported by the DSS.
Edgar, Nincsnevem,
Notice also how a Jewish translation renders Zech. 12:10, which is clearly correct in light of context:
"And they shall look upon Me because they have thrust HIM through" (emphasis mine) ~ The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation, The Jewish Publication Society of America
We know that it isn't God who is pierced because the very next clause says, "and they will certainly wail over HIM as in the wailing over an only [son]." If God were the one pierced, then the text would read "and they will certainly wail over ME as in the wailing over an only [son]."
"And they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son."
That is consistent with ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν at John 19:37.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HezBaSlSs
@Sean Kasabuske
It doesn't matter how one translation or another "translates" it, because the text of Zechariah 12:10 should be simply translated based on the completely substantiated Hebrew text of Zechariah 12:10, not, for example, based on John 19:37. There, the text reads אֵלַ֖י (êlay), which is clearly first person singular, and nothing else. This fact is not altered by John 19:37, as the NT writers often quoted the OT freely and not verbatim.
"We know that it isn't God who is pierced because the very next clause says" - Obviously, it is not the one whose Son is being spoken about later who is pierced, but here that Son is being called God.
This is similar to when NWT apologists argue in the case of Acts 20:28 that an interpolation is necessary because clearly, it wasn't God (the Father) who shed His blood. Of course not, but the one who did is called "God" there, not thee Father.
Nincsnevem, both Zechariah 12:10 and Acts 20:28 are more complex than you suggest. But let's stick with 12:10 for now. See https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/cbtj/13-1_001.pdf
Nincsnevem,
You seem to have missed the point entirely. The Jewish translation I referenced in my last post is based on a Hebrew text that has אֵלַ֖י, the first-person singular ME. Did you take the time to watch the video (see the link I posted)?
In other words, my last post shows that even if we grant that the Hebrew at Zech. 12:10 has ME, that still doesn't help your case because of the placement of אֵ֣ת.
The correct translation of the text that has the first-person singular ME is:
"And they shall look unto ME because they have thrust HIM through; and they shall mourn for HIM, as one mourneth for his only son."
Notice that God, referred to there as ME, is NOT the one who is pierced; rather, the one who is pierced is the "HIM" who is thrust through and mourned for.
That rendering is consistent with ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν at John 19:37.
Dear Mr. Foster,
Thank you for the link; it was a useful read.
This is not the only example of Jews being theologically motivated to alter Torah manuscripts. There is another example with similar content: Psalms 22:17.
The issue is that in the Masoretic text it indeed says "like a lion" (כארי, kā'ărî), but the Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed that this is already an alteration, as the older text states 'kaaru' (כארו). There is only a single letter difference, but the latter precisely means "they pierced." http://dssenglishbible.com/psalms%2022.htm
You can probably now guess why this is significant :-)
Catholics have not had a problem with the latter version so far, as this change was made by Jews after the time of Jerome. However, there are also changes made before that, which would also be significant as they concern the authenticity of the New Testament, for example Cainan in Luke 3:36.
Therefore, I hope that the HBCE will be completed soon.
Acts 20:28 is rather complex however scholars ( trinitarian) admit that an implied predicate is likely as ever other occurrence of the previous word ( don’t know it off hand) has a predicate..
Statistically the nwt is correct - burden of proof is on Ninc to prove otherwise
If I understand correctly please see Kiel and Delitzsch commentary on this subject: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/22-17.htm
@Anonymous
In Acts 20:28 the 1984 edition of the NWT places the WTS's insertion [Son] in brackets, it is not in the original text. It is clear that it was not the Father's blood that was shed, but the Son's.
The simple meaning of the original text phrase (dia tou haimatos tou idiou) is: "God ... through his own blood."
If the text were: 'dia tou haimatos idiou', or as some old manuscripts render it: 'dia idiou haimatos' ("through his own blood"), then the above translation would be the only one possible. However, since most manuscripts have a possessive article (tou idiou) before 'idiu', it is grammatically also possible to translate it as "God ... through the blood of his own."
However this interpretation is highly unlikely, since Jesus is never called "God's own" in the Bible, only once "God's own Son" (Rom 8:32), and we know that Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary "with his own blood" (dia tou idiou haimatos, Heb 9:12).
The JWs refers to 1 John 1:7 when interpreting the verse, which states that "the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us," indicating that it was the Son's, not God's, blood that was shed. It is true that it was the Son's, not the Father's, blood that was shed, but it is another question whether "God" refers only to the Father or also to the Son. Moreover, when would the First and Last have died if not in the Son? (Isa 44:6, 48:12 cf. Rev 1:8, 17-18, 22:13)
It should also be noted that some old manuscripts have "Lord" instead of "God's church"; this has influenced some old translations, but studies have shown, this is a later "correction." (The NWT likely would not have replaced "Lord" with "Jehovah" here.)
Check this: https://www.forananswer.org/Acts/Bowman_Acts20_28.htm
In my judgment, Acts 20:28 is a no-brainer:
1. The grammar allows either "his own blood" or "blood of his own [son]".
2. God is 'spirit' and as such has no blood.
3. Jesus had blood.
4. Jesus is the one who shed his blood for humans.
5. We can therefore safely conclude that "blood of his own [son]" is correct.
Here's a little something I posted on Facebook:
There are both textual and translation issues with the text. Does the text say "church of God" or "church of the Lord"? It depends on which manuscripts you take to reflect the original reading.
For a consideration of the textual issue, see "On the Reading 'Church of God,' Acts xx.28," Bsac 33 (1876), by Ezra Abbot. Abbot's article is the most comprehensive one on this text that I've encountered, just as Abbot's article about Romans 9:5 is the most comprehensive one on that text that I've encountered. He was a first-rate scholar.
Setting aside the textual issue, the relevant Greek can either mean "with his own blood" or "with the blood of his own [Son]." Since it was the Son who shed blood, I'd say that this one is a bit of a no-brainer.
Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris analyzed the text at some length in Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, and concluded:
"I have argued that the original text of Acts 20:28 read τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου and that the most appropriate translation of these words is 'the church of God which he acquired through the blood of his own one' or 'the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son' (NJB), with ὁ ἴδιος construed as a christological title. According to this view, ὁ θεός refers to God the Father, not Jesus Christ." (see page 141)
Catholic R. E. Brown:
"perhaps theos refers to the Father and idios to the Son, thus, 'the church of God (the Father) which He obtained with the blood of His own (Son).'" ~ "Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?" TS 26.4 (1965), 553
"It is the flock he bought with the blood of his own Son." ~ CEV
"which he made his own through the blood of his Son." ~ GNT
"that he obtained with the blood of his own Son." ~ NET Bible
"that he obtained with the blood of his own Son." ~ NRSV
"which he hath acquired through means of the blood of his own." ~ Rotherham
"which he acquired by means of his own Son's death" ~ Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains
So, let's say that it should turn out that the KJV's rendering of Zech 12:10 is correct, despite the fact that (a) Jewish translators clearly see the text differently, and (b) the very next clause suggests that it was not God who was pierced. Would that mean that God was *literally* pierced when his Son was pierced? No, I don't think that's a necessary conclusion. When one encounters figurative language, the primary clue that such language is figurative is when it can't literally be true. God is spirit, and spirit beings can't be literally pierced. So how should we then understand the text? Jesus gives us a clue, when he said:
"‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"
To do something good or evil to one of Jesus' brothers or sisters is to do it to Jesus, figuratively speaking. Likewise, to do something good or evil to Jesus is to do that thing to his Father, figuratively speaking.
When they pierced Jesus literally, they pierced God figuratively.
@Sean Kasabuske
Of course, the Son shed his blood not as God but as a man, it's a needless to come up with this trivial fact, neither Nicene-Chalcedonian nor theology states otherwise, on the contrary, this is where the so-called The concept of "communicatio idiomatum", which you google.
Anyway, I don't understand the purpose of the JWs' argument in this area, or at least I consider it inconsistent, because the WTS does not deny that the Son is called 'theos' multiple times in NT, they just reinterpret it on the model of the Canaanite "elohim"-pantoen, yet for some reason there is still an effort to reduce the number of 'theos' applied to the Son as much as possible.
But does it really matter if it's twice, five times, ten times, etc. is this used? Why is it not enough to come up with the "usual" argument that "yes, the Son is 'theos' here, but only as a minor god".
"Of course, the Son shed his blood not as God but as a man, it's a needless to come up with this trivial fact, neither Nicene-Chalcedonian nor theology states otherwise, on the contrary, this is where the so-called The concept of 'communicatio idiomatum', which you google."
It merely seems trivial to you because you come to the texts with the presupposition of Trinitarianism firmly in place. If someone does not come to the texts with the presupposition of Trinitarianism in place, then one can reach more natural conclusions that are not shaped by anachronism. One can observe the grammatical possibilities and then use good judgment rather than post-Apostolic Christology to inform one's conclusions.
"Anyway, I don't understand the purpose of the JWs' argument in this area, or at least I consider it inconsistent, because the WTS does not deny that the Son is called 'theos' multiple times in NT..."
Murray J. Harris doesn't deny that Jesus is called theos in multiple places in the NT, yet he doesn't think that Acts 20:28 is one of those texts. Does that mean that you don't understand Harris' argument in this area, or that you find him inconsistent because he doesn't deny that the Son is called theos multiple times in the NT? You should try and be more charitable to your fellow Trinitarians, as those who disagree with you may simply feel that, while they agree that Jesus is God, they appreciate that it's best not to try and force every text to support that presupposition.
"they just reinterpret it on the model of the Canaanite "elohim"-pantheon"
Provide evidence for this statement please?
“ Canaanite "elohim"-pantoen,” - not even close to what they mean and you know it
yes, the Son is 'theos' here, but only as a minor god".- grammatically, it is unlikely
“ they appreciate that it's best not to try and force every text to support that presupposition” - Sean
this is why I respect people like Harris & AT Robertson
They don’t have to try so hard to convince themselves the trinity is true… I know of some scholars who “admitted” they were wrong and proved the WT correct indirectly.
They don’t have to make up pathetic arguments to prove their point… and they know what we mean when we talk about John’s usage of arkhe for example….
@Sean Kasabuske
Naturally, they do not explicitly call it a "Canaanite 'elohim' pantheon," but according to hermeneutical-theological conclusions, this is the situation.
The ancient Hebrews were not strictly monotheistic. The Second Temple Judaism and Rabbinical Judaism are emphatically monotheistic; however, its predecessor—the cult of Yahweh as practiced in ancient Israel during the 9th and 8th centuries BCE (Yahwism)—has been described as henotheistic or monolatric. This means that when the earlier books of the Old Testament were written, monotheism at the theoretical level had not yet been neither revealed, nor established. Therefore, the concept of "god" in the early Old Testament books is henotheistic: other gods do exist, but there is one main God, Yahweh, and only He is to be worshipped.
This is why expressions like "God of gods" exist in the OT for Yahwhe. In this respect, the concept of El-Eloah-Elohim in the early Old Testament books represents an earlier and inferior conception of the deity, which should be considered surpassed from the perspective of Second Temple Judaism and especially Christianity.
This is precisely why the early Old Testament books refer to angels, judges, etc., as "elohim," because there is nothing extraordinary about this within the henotheistic framework.
However, by the time of Christ, this concept and even this terminology no longer existed. In the New Testament, there is no precedent for describing anything other than the one true Almighty God as "theoi" in a positive sense. Nowhere in the New Testament are angels, judges, prophets, or anyone else called "theoi."
It is no coincidence that for example in Hebrews 2:7, the inspired author translates what the original psalmist wrote as "elohim" to "aggeloi" (angels). Why? Because, on a principle level, in the NT, calling actual "theoi" to created beings is kept away.
Consequently, this 'theos' concept does not exist in the Greek of the New Testament. So when you don't deny the Son's being "theos", but you want to put it in such a henotheistic OT sense, you simply used a category that has no precedent in the NT at all.
@Anonymous
You're just doing the same as you always do, searching for quotes to flag until you find one. I bet that if I hid in the library long enough, I could find source for any "exotic" ideas, I would also find a source that Julius Caesar was an extraterrestrial and that Jesus Christ was actually a woman. This is the same as George Howard's passing around as a trophy regarding "Jehovah" in the NT, ignoring the certainty with which the author presented his idea, and the extent to which it is considered accepted among the scholars.
@Sean Kasabuske
I don't know what kind of "Trinitarianism" you're talking about; I was only discussing Chalcedonian Christology and, most importantly, the "communicatio idiomatum," which has clear biblical precedents, e.g., "killed the author of life" (Acts 3:15), "crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8; cf. Rom 8:32, Acts 20:28, 1 Jn 3:16). Now, the Son is obviously not "the author of life" as a human, nor is he "the Lord of glory," though he obviously could only have been crucified as a human.
Since Christ is the personal, independent, and self-possessed bearer of both divine and human natures, and because in the order of being, the subject of all statements is ultimately the independent entity (suppositum, hypostasis), the two sets of predicates (divine and human attributes) can be interchanged through the person. Therefore, divine attributes can be ascribed to Christ, who is human, and human attributes can be ascribed to Christ, who is God. This is the "communicatio idiomatum" (κοινοποίησις, ἀντίδοσις ἰδιωμάτων, ἰδιοτήτων). Only those who adopt two subjects in Christ, like Nestorianism, can oppose this.
Additionally, the practice of "communicatio idiomatum" has been widespread in the history of the early Church since Ignatius of Antioch. The Church Fathers practiced this with great determination and boldness, see Origen, Princip. II 6, 3; Nazianz. Or. 2, 24 (who already uses the term); later Leontius of Byzantium, Nest. et Eutych. (M 86, 1, 1289 c.); Nyssen, Adv. Apol. ad Theoph. (M 45, 1277 a); Cyril of Alexandria, Adv. Nest. III 3; Gelasius, Tr. de duab. nat. 4.
The Didache 10:6, with a clear reference to Mt 21:9, says about Christ: "Hosanna to the God of David!" Ignatius, a disciple of John the Apostle and a faithful interpreter of his theology, "wants to imitate in Rome the sufferings of his God," and he expresses the whole content of the mystery of the incarnation with surprising precision: "There is one physician, both fleshly and spiritual, born and unborn, God in the flesh"; "Mary carried our God Jesus in her womb." (Ignat. Rom 6, 3; Eph 7, 2; 18, 2; cf. 19, 3)
So with the fact that by definition it was not the Deity who did not have body and blood who shed his blood, you will not be able to disprove that in Acts 20:28 "theos" means the Son.
“ You're just doing the same as you always do, searching for quotes to flag until you find one.” - am I? Or am I referencing experts in the field…
For your other claims go on then.. prove Jesus was a woman- please
“ ignoring the certainty with which the author presented his idea, and the extent to which it is considered accepted among the scholars” one problem, what about 1 Corin 2:16 - get around that..
“ there is no precedent for describing anything other than the one true Almighty God as "theoi" in a positive sense. Nowhere in the New Testament are angels, judges, prophets, or anyone else called "theoi."” - 1. Prove it
2. If it’s not relevant why did Jesus quote a psalm to human judges?
3. Even a belly is called “a god”- Vines and strings both will back me up in this claim, I’d like to see a dictionary that doesn’t
Bible hub has these definitions:
Θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, equivalent to God's representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges, John 10:34f after Psalm 81:6 () (of the wise man, Philo de mut. nom. § 22; quod omn. prob. book § 7; (ὁ σοφός λέγεται Θεός τοῦ ἄφρονος ... Θεός πρός φαντασίαν καί δοκησιν, quod det. pot. insid. § 44)
The person or thing to which one is wholly devoted, for which alone he lives, e. g. ἡ κοιλία, Philippians 3:19.
- so your turn to prove your side…
@Anonymous
"Or am I referencing experts in the field…"
Yes, exactly in the same way George Howard is often cited regarding "Jehovah" in the New Testament, carefully ignoring the fact that:
1) He presented it merely as an interesting hypothesis.
2) This opinion is entirely marginal in the scholarly community.
3) He did not intend for this hypothesis to justify translations that insert it without manuscript evidence.
"what about 1 Corin 2:16 - get around that.."
Could you clarify what you meant exactly?
"If it’s not relevant why did Jesus quote a psalm to human judges?"
We've discussed this many times, but now let's focus on the fact that Christ did not speak Greek in this instance, so he didn't say "theoi." John translated "elohim" to "theoi" to make the dialogue understandable, that is, that Christ here used the "kal va-chomer" argument known in Torah hermeneutics. This exception proves the rule, as no other example exists where the NT writers translate OT passages "elohim" as "theoi," even when referring to angels, unless the pericope structure demands it in this specific case.
"Even a belly is called “a god”" - ...and in a positive and affirming sense?
@Nincsnevem
If you want to discuss the church Fathers then I'd suggest that you focus on discussions with Edgar, Roman, and others, as I don't think they're relevant to Apostolic Christology. If you want to know what the Apostles thought, then read the Bible. If you want to know what the later fathers thought, then read the later fathers. To read the Bible through the lens of the fathers is anachronistic.
See: https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2020/04/17/christology-how-important-are-the-writings-of-the-fathers/
@Sean Kasabuske
Patristics and extrabiblical sources, even if they do not hold the same authority as the Bible, are still essential. Assuming that the NT was not misunderstood immediately after the death of the Apostle John, these sources show the beliefs of ancient Christians. Of course, one can play biblical ping-pong, but Christianity is also a historical phenomenon. Various Bible passages have been interpreted differently over time. For me, the interpretations of those almost contemporaneous with the apostles carry more weight than speculations made two thousand years later.
Many individuals have abandoned, are abandoning, and will abandon their faith, gathering followers around them, as the Scriptures testify (Acts 20:28-31; 1 John 2:18-19). According to every known secular and theological definition, "apostasy" refers to individuals abandoning their religion or belief system (1 John 2:19), not a collective heresy of an entire group. The Bible nowhere states that the entire Church established by Jesus would or could ever abandon Him. Such a departure is impossible, considering His promises (Mt 16:18; 18:15-20; 28:20; John 14:16-17, 23, 26; 16:7, 12-14; 17:9-23), along with the inspired apostolic doctrine that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), the command to "hold to the traditions you were taught by us, either by spoken word or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15, referring to "oral tradition" AND "Scripture"), and the fact that "through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places" (Eph. 3:10).
In the writings of the CFs, there is no mention of a great apostasy of the entire Church or of a significant struggle for the faith. They mention individual heretics and certain heretical movements that began and grew after Christ's ascension and Pentecost, but there is no mention of a complete apostasy. If the CFs were part of the apostasy, they would likely have mentioned their new doctrines to condemn Christians adhering to older apostolic teachings! But there is no sign of such a debate, and no writings support the idea of a mass apostasy from the true faith. History is completely silent. History mentions other great schisms within the Church (such as the Ebionites, Arianism, the Great Schism in 1054, and the Protestant Reformation in 1517), but about this massive schism ("great apostasy"), there is complete silence.
Orthodox Catholic theologians have not been silent about being condemned as heretical teachers of devilish doctrines. Every movement deemed heretical by Catholic orthodoxy in the first four centuries either died out or faded away. All of them strongly contradicted one or more NT teachings, and some even rejected protocanonical biblical books accepted by all Christians from the beginning of the Church. Collectively, they do not represent a unified Christian theology that could be called the original apostolic Christian gospel from which the Church apostatized. The various doctrines and groups rejected by Catholic orthodoxy even contradict each other. Their writings, which have survived and are accessible, show that none represent or resemble the teachings of JWs, Mormons, or fundamentalist Protestants. So they do not represent any writings from the first four centuries of Christianity. This historical silence is taken as evidence that the "Great Apostasy" from evangelical Reformation Christianity must have happened, which is circular reasoning.
It is unreasonable to assume that the earliest CFs—personally taught by the apostles—would teach heresies, and that the truly faithful followers of the apostles' doctrines, who had their writings and knew the older generation that personally heard them teach and preach, would have remained silent about such a massive paradigm shift in the Church's fundamental teachings.
@Nincsnevem
As I said, if you want to talk about the Fathers, then take it up with those who share your enthusiasm for them, as I do not, at least with respect to accurate Christology, and for good reason. The fact is that they were too far removed, most not only in time, but all in intellectual and socio-cultural 'place' to be trustworthy guides to Apostolic Christology. As the late Larry Hurtado has pointed out, the ontological categories within which the Fathers viewed Christ were foreign to the Jewish Apostles.
See: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/chronology-and-ontology/
Your view that the earlier Fathers couldn't have got their Christology wrong because they were taught by Apostles is really rather naive. I have personally seen people who live in the same time and the same culture misunderstand each other more times than I could possibly count. It is interesting to note that this sort of misunderstanding seems to be especially prevalent when it comes to religious discourse. No, I'm afraid that one has no reason to assume that all who were taught by an Apostle walked away with an accurate understanding of everything they heard, while we have every reason to believe that the likelihood was high that misunderstandings emerged.
About this:
"Yes, exactly in the same way George Howard is often cited regarding 'Jehovah' in the New Testament, carefully ignoring the fact that:
1) He presented it merely as an interesting hypothesis.
2) This opinion is entirely marginal in the scholarly community.
3) He did not intend for this hypothesis to justify translations that insert it without manuscript evidence."
You are so consumed with a partisan spirit that you can't even see just how bizarre that argument really is. The fact that one agrees with Howard's thesis in no way binds one to agree with how he personally choses to proceed in light of the information. Honestly, why should anyone care whether he would support using the Divine Name in their translation of the New Testament? The question about whether there are good reasons to believe that the Divine Name appeared in the New Testament (there are) and the question about how translators should respond to that information are two separate questions. There's no reason why one can't find Howard's answer to one compelling but dismiss his answer to the other because it is quite weak.
After all is considered, the bottom of the bottom line is that whether or not one will conclude that the divine name was included in the original New Testament writings really comes down to four fundamental questions:
1. Is the New Testament inspired by the same God who inspired the Old Testament?
2. Which is true: (a) God preserved his word while humans failed to in one important respect or (b) humans preserved God’s word but God failed to in one important respect?
3. Is God capricious?
4. Should our commitment be (a) to the manuscript copies that have been preserved, most of which are late and unquestionably reveal modifications and tampering, or (b) to the God who inspired the originals?
Anyone who answers “Yes” to 1, “a” to 2, “No” to 3, and “b” to 4, should join JWs in our commitment to the restoration of the divine name to the New Testament.
“Yes, exactly in the same way George Howard is often cited regarding "Jehovah" in the New Testament” - this is like saying Harners citation is used to prove “a god” is a legitimately rendering - it’s not, when read properly it is merely used to prove that the definite “God” is a rendering Harner did not support
Same with GHs thesis, it is used to prove a different argument than the one you claim..
“Could you clarify what you meant exactly?” - surprised you have never answered this before
In 1 Corin 2:16 we have a quotation and non quotation portion ( refered too as from now on ) in the quoted portion
There are NO variants where Paul uses the divine name ( from the lxx) in the non quotation portion we have “ but we do have the mind of Christ” here’s your problem - there are significant manuscripts that have lord in this position as well.
If we assume Lord is original then we must assume a scribe could not see the blatant contridiction in the text.
The Christ variant raises a question why at some point was “lord” changed to “Christ” or vice versa? This would only make sense if the divine name was originally in the quoted portion of the lxx Paul quoted from.. ( which we know it was in all copies pre-Christian)
Better more detailed explanation available on request
“This exception proves the rule, as no other example exists where the NT writers translate OT passages "elohim" as "theoi," even when referring to angels, unless the pericope structure demands it in this specific case” - there is a simpler explanation but anyhow.. sure
Generally scholars agree Judges are Called “gods” here in the sense of the office they held as with the king in psalms..
“in a positive and affirming sense?” - in neither positive ( worship it) or negative ( false god) rather something that one is wholly devoted too / high office sense - the middle ground, as can be seen in other writings of similar time frames to the NT
Why do you limit this to just the NT, there is a much bigger pool we must consider
Theological motivation right here
@Sean Kasabuske
I'm going to have a pretty busy day today, so I won't be able to give a more detailed answer until later, in the meantime please read my own notes regarding this issue about the Divine Name: https://justpaste.it/b9fiu
In brief: The point is that the divine name YHWH was primarily important in the theological environment of the Old Testament era, including primarily in the First Temple era, for Hebrew-speaking Israelites.
Since it practically means "He Is", it was actually a permanent reminder to the Israelites that there is only him, the so-called gods of other peoples do not exist.
In the first place, for an ancient pastoral people, the concept that "god" did not mean that it is for us, but kind of a being with superpower. If I went back in time and set off fireworks, the ancients would call me a "god". But this cocept of "god" is not the Christian concept of God, the absolute transcendental timeless "actus purus", but only a powerful being capable of performing "miracles" that are incomprehensible to them. (Since the translation of the Judeo-Christian monotheistic concept of God into other languages is often difficult, there was a serious theological debate about how God should be called in Chinese.)
So this is not an abstract concept of God, the ancient Israelites could not handle this, and even according to religious historians, the early Jews were actually not monotheistic, but henotheistic, which practically means that they believed in the existence of other gods, but since they were ordered not to worship them, that's why they simply didn't.
When God in the Bible emphatically declared, that "I am Yahweh", He essentially said, "understand that I alone am the existing God, no other god exists beside me". Therefore, this Name had a pedagogical aim and role, somewhat like telling a small child that the "name" of the plug is "Don'tStickYourFingerInIt". It is perfectly clear that this "name" is not a name in the sense of, say, Carl, but serves the purpose of reminding the person, when recalling this "name", of the most important thing they should think of first in relation to this matter. So the purpose of the name Yahweh was to remind Jews in a fundamentally polytheistic environment that their God is the only existing God, while the many "gods" of other peoples do not actually exist.
Then this function later became unnecessary, and just as if this post of mine were translated into a non-English language, the example "name" of "Don'tStickYourFingerInIt" would lose its meaning as well. And the mother tongue of the Jews later became Aramaic instead of Hebrew.
Therefore, those who insist on "using" the name Yahweh / Jehovah today are actually practicing a theological anachronism, because on the one hand, this approach ignores that this is not a series of letters, but a revelation of content of faith, and on the other hand it is simply completely foreign to the theological environment of the Pauline Christianity.
What about Jesus? There is no mention in any line of the Gospels that Jesus would have dealt with this issue at all, it turns out that in this regard, together with the apostles, they took note of the already established practice of the Jews.
The JWs do refer to John 17:6 ("I have revealed your name"), but this obviously does not refer to the Tetragrammaton, since it was not Jesus who revealed it to the people, but Moses, and the Jews obviously already knew this, and heard from the mouth of the high priest on Yom Kippur.
Anon
"Or am I referencing experts in the field"
Of course, because your method is to collect quotes to justify your theological prejudices, while conveniently ignoring whether this is a marginal position in the scholarly community. Therefore, your premature celebratory dance, "see? see? EVEN he said that!!!!", is quite unwarranted.
"prove Jesus was a woman- please"
Let it suffice that, for example, Helminiak, Theodore W. Jennings Jr., and Benny Liew interpret a homosexual element into healing the centurion's servant (suggesting they were in a homosexual relationship) and that the centurion did not want Jesus to visit his servant personally in his house, lest the servant fall in love with Jesus instead. I don’t need to comment on how utterly ridiculous that is. The point is that you can find a "source" for any nonsense.
"Bible hub has these definitions"
Of course, you carefully omitted that the *only* NT example of this is a literal translation of Ps. 81:6 in John 10:34, which I explained above. The simple reason for this is that Christ's answer would not have been understandable otherwise, but you can't provide a single example where creatures are described as "theoi" in an affirmative and positive sense in the NT. Philippians 3:19 is neither affirmative nor positive. So there is no NT precedent for this.
The Son is God not only in the sense that "elohim" is used in the OT in a general sense (even ironically, e.g., in the case of judges), but in reality, the NT does not recognize this concept of "theos."
In the NT, designating angels as THEOS does not occur, so this only appears in this OT quote, and moreover, "Elohim" in Hebrew is a much more general term, which in this case might be better translated as Mighty Ones, etc., rather than "God" in the proper sense. The word "GOD" in Greek, English, etc., always refers to the omnipotent, creator, infinite single God, and no one else. In the case of Jesus, we do not only rely on the application of the word "THEOS" not just once and without any diminutive additions but also on such attributes (omniscience, timelessness, hearing of prayers, to be worshipped (both proskuneo AND latreou, etc.) which cannot apply to the created angels.
John 10:34-35 just proves that the divinity of the Son is superior compared to calling the judges "elohim" in Psalm 82, where Jesus uses this for a so-called "kal va-chomer" argument.
Read:
* https://shorturl.at/JB8Ec from page 49
* https://t.ly/CsF2b
* https://t.ly/esyel
The statement "you are gods" comes from Ps. 82, but it does not talk about "born gods", but about earthly judges who bore the name of God for this function only. They judge falsely, do not understand, walk in darkness, and ultimately die. So these are not gods, but people. When Jesus referred to this passage, he only claimed that it was not unprecedented men as elohim, so he could not even be stoned for this reason. But he did not claim that his divinity was the same as that of the judges poetically addressed as "gods" in the psalm. The Father and the Son are NOT just "one in intention and thought", but they have one and the same divine reality, nature.
So, just because the judges were referred to as "gods" in a certain sense in one place in the OT, Jesus is not limited to such titular divinity, because in John 10:36 he forms a HIGHER right to divinity than theirs. Ps. 82 mocks the judges who were "gods" (mighty ones), but because they became unfaithful, they die as people. In John 10:34-36, Jesus refers back to Ps. 82: IF God mockingly called the judges "gods", how much more true is it for Him (who is truly so).
@Sean Kasabuske
I did not claim that individual Church Fathers were "infallible" in their Christology, but the fact is that there is not a single early Christian source that states the Father "created" the Son or that the Son is Michael the Archangel, etc. On the contrary, there are countless sources affirming that the Son is God. Now, this is only possible if Christianity "collapsed" almost immediately after the Apostles, like a new car breaking down on its first turn out of the dealership. This implies that practically everyone "misunderstood" the Apostles' message.
Both Howard and even the relatively pro-NWT BeDuhn emphasized that, in the absence of manuscript evidence, it is unjustifiable to create a translation based on hypotheses and assumptions that inserts "Jehovah" into the NT. When the Watchtower cites these authors but omits this opinion, it actually gives readers a false impression, as if this practice has the support of the scholarly community, whereas the opposite is true. Despite this, in the spirit of publication freedom, it is not forbidden to create a "translation" where Jesus is renamed William, or Moses is renamed Ferdinand, but let's not claim that this is an accepted Bible translation method. The standard Bible translation is based on the existing manuscript text (e.g., NA), and incorporating speculative ideas into the text is not an accepted practice.
The fact that YHWH was present in the OT does not necessarily mean it "had" to be in the NT, simply because revelation is continuous, and the theological context of the NT is different from that of the early OT period. There was circumcision in the OT, but it is no longer in the NT. In the link I provided above, I clearly explained the theological function of the Tetragrammaton, which was fulfilled, and there was no need for it in the NT.
Moreover, in all other cases, WT publications celebrate how faithfully the Bible has been preserved and assure us that we can trust the manuscripts.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002893
" the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero"
So the Watchtower emphasizes that God's word is intact, the available copies and manuscripts are authentic and reliable. This is what they assert, but then, when it comes to the alleged "erasing" of "Jehovah" from the NT, are these very same manuscripts no longer reliable? Since there is no evidence for this theory (only speculation), this is both a conspiracy theory and undermines the credibility of the New Testament: if the text was falsified in this respect, how do we know that it was only in this respect?
@Anonymous
Harner and other Greek scholars do not imagine a "definite" article in John 1:1c but understand 'theos' in a qualitative sense. In Greek, an "anarthrous predicate nominative" in the presence of a copulative verb can express either identification with a definite entity or a qualitative description. The former is excluded by Trinitarian doctrine (since Jesus is neither identical to the Father nor the Trinity), while the latter is affirmed in the sense that "the Word was of divine nature". Many ancient Church Fathers held this view against Arianism, asserting the deity of the Logos as a quality, not merely some divine derivation or vague "divinity" (the*i*otēs).
From the fluctuations among manuscripts about whether Theos, Kyrios, or Christos was used in a given place, why would it follow that "Jehovah" was there? This is like saying that if witnesses in a criminal trial contradicted each other on whether the perpetrator wore a blue or white shirt, it would imply that he was actually dressed as a clown.
"Judges are called 'gods' here in the sense of the office they held, as with the king in Psalms."
But this is not the issue here; the issue is the context in which this was stated and why John NEEDED to render this as 'theoi' when writing his gospel in GREEK, whereas all other apostles did not translate OT passages where creatures are affirmatively called 'elohim' in this way. Therefore, the NT concept of 'theos' is not identical to the early OT books' concept of el-eloah-elohim because, in the NT theological context, there is no general sense of calling someone "god," which is no more than calling someone "cool" in modern English vernacular.
"In neither positive (worship it) or negative (false god) rather something that one is wholly devoted to / high office sense"
Okay, but what I am claiming is that there is no precedent in the NT for the Father’s created agents to be called 'theoi' in an affirmative sense. And you cannot show any precedent for that.
"Why do you limit this to just the NT, there is a much bigger pool we must consider"
Because the NT is the only part of the Bible originally written in Greek, and therefore, to understand the NT concept of 'theos,' we must consider the NT.
"Christ did not speak Greek" ??????
And you know this how ?????
These were Hellenised Jews, along with just about everyone else.
There is no data to support the supposed divide.
https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9789004263406_01-Buth-Intro.pdf
@Duncan
Read carefully what I stated. I didn't say that Christ couldn't have known Greek, but that the conversation between the Palestinian Jews took place in Aramaic. So it wasn't "theoi" but "elohim" that was spoken there. Therefore, only John translated it into Greek in this manner because the argument would only be understandable that way. Besides, Christ was not a Hellenized Jew; only Paul was among the apostles. Andrew and Philip, the two apostles with Greek names, served as interpreters and mediators for a small group of Greeks with Jesus.
Its still wishful thinking that there was some kind of mental divide between Greek and Jew in the first century. You still have no evidence for this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVll4HFWoXE
"the conversation between the Palestinian Jews took place in Aramaic", is just an assertion.
You don't really have a leg to stand on.
https://williamaross.com/2016/01/29/did-jesus-speak-greek-a-review/
ALL Jews were Hellenized to different degrees. This was the cultural environment of the time.
So either way, Elohim does not have to mean what you assert for the 1st century.
“Harner and other Greek scholars do not imagine a "definite" article in John 1:1c” - didnt say that, scholars abound in late 90s early 2000s want theos in John 1:1 to be definite - hence why witnesses cite other pre-verbal anarthorus nominative clauses which all bibles add “a” too.
“From the fluctuations among manuscripts about whether Theos, Kyrios, or Christos was used in a given place, why would it follow that "Jehovah" was there?” - see David trobish the original New Testament for that one… it is in fact highly likely that christaians had something to do with it. Again EVERY pre-Christian lxx has the name in it and been Origens writings has it in ( at lest I think it’s Origen)
“whereas all other apostles did not translate OT passages where creatures are affirmatively called 'elohim' in this “ -
1. because if you are referring to Paul, the lxx he quoted from likely had “Angels” rather than “Elohim”
“because, in the NT theological context, there is no general sense of calling someone "god,"” - even if we omit John why does Paul call Satan theos or the belly?
And again I can find no scholar catholic, trinitarian etc that agrees with you - I think it’s more likely you are making something up and omitting information
“And you cannot show any precedent for that.” - can’t I? Are you sure about that?
“Because the NT is the only part of the Bible originally written in Greek, and therefore, to understand the NT concept of 'theos,' we must consider the NT.” - what about all the other writings that were originally penned in Greek?, you want to admit what you are hiding or shall I put it on show? Let’s start with Origens commentary on John and I don’t the 11Q manuscript..
Origen thinks Matt was originally written in Hebrew fyi
John 10:34-35 - has nothing to do with divinity… the original question is was he the Christ?
Also we have gone way off the original post ( again) not sure why Edgar is letting these through tbh
Anonymous, I have allowed off-topic remarks, but only for a time. The thread will soon close.
Anonymous - it is not possible to argue in isolation. Have you never cited other verses from other writings to try to defend and argument? This seems to be the way of it particularly with biblical points.
"The similarities in arrangement and wording of the Hebrew and Greek texts of Matthew clearly suggest that one text served as a model for the other. Which came first, however, we do not know. But whether Greek or Hebrew, the second was written as an original composition, not as a translation." - https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/was-the-gospel-of-matthew-originally-written-in-hebrew/
As I thought - there is more to the divine name story than Ninc is letting on : https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/writing-pronouncing-the-divine-name-in-second-temple-jewish-tradition/
I knew about the superstition of not pronouncing it… but it’s not as Ninc has been trying to make out
@Duncan
What Language Did Jesus Speak?
https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-language-did-jesus-speak
"There is wide consensus among scholars that Aramaic was the primary language spoken by the Jews of first-century Palestine."
I don’t think anyone has claimed that Christ, for example, spoke Greek with his fellow Jews in Palestine. Therefore, we have no reason to assume anything other than that this conversation in the mentioned pericope also took place in Aramaic.
It is not excluded that he conversed with those not native to Judea, but this specific conversation does not suggest that.
"ALL Jews were Hellenized to different degrees. This was the cultural environment of the time."
To some extent, it is possible, but the term Hellenistic Judaism is not used in relation to the Jewish community in Palestine. Rather, it refers to the Diaspora in the Roman Empire, primarily in its eastern part, where Jews spoke Greek partly or wholly in daily life, while Hebrew (and Aramaic) were used for liturgical and religious purposes.
"Elohim does not have to mean what you assert for the 1st century."
I also said that in the 1st century, Jews likely used the term "Elohim" only for the one true Almighty God. Accordingly, in biblical texts from a thousand years earlier, where angels are called "Elohim", translations and paraphrases used different terms. For this reason, "elohim" when used for angels became "aggeloi" in Greek, or when the Old Testament refers to angels as "sons of God" (Hebrew b'ne Elohim, for example Job 38:7, Psalm 36:9), it appears in the LXX as "God's angels", not "sons".
@Anonymous
John 1:1c cannot be definite because saying "and the Logos WAS *the God" would imply that the Son is identical with the Father (Sabellianism, Modalism) or with the entire Trinity, which would be heretical according to Nicene Christology. Therefore, I consider the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible (EOB) translation the best in this regard: "... and the Word was {what} God {was}." Footnote:
"This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates a qualitative sense for theos. The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: “God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father.”"
"In order to allow the public reader to use the now traditional form “The Word was God,” the EOB uses parentheses to inform the private reader that the second theos should be understood in a qualitative, not personal sense. The liturgical reader also has the option to read the verse as “the Word was what God was” which is indeed a very accurate translation of the grammar and intent of the Greek text."
"Again EVERY pre-Christian LXX has the name."
Not every one, but there was such a trend of re-Hebraizing. This does not prove that this was the original or even mainstream reading of the LXX. Read Albert Pietersma's writings on the LXX. Besides, what does this prove in the context of the NT? It's like arguing that "because there's a sink in my bathroom, there must be one in my living room as well."
"because if you are referring to Paul, the LXX he quoted from likely had “Angels” rather than “Elohim”"
Not only Paul the Apostle, but I suppose you believe that the apostles knew the original Hebrew text, especially Paul with his Pharisaic education. He was not bound to an interpretative translation of the LXX in this regard and could have translated it as "theoi" if he wanted to reinforce that the category of "secondary created theos-ness" was still valid and existing within the theological framework of the NT.
"even if we omit John why does Paul call Satan theos or the belly?"
But does he do so in a positive and affirming sense?
"“And you cannot show any precedent for that.” - can’t I? Are you sure about that?"
I'm waiting for you to show an example where any NT text positively and affirmatively refers to creatures as "theos" or "theoi."
"what about all the other writings that were originally penned in Greek?"
Can you name any inspired biblical writings you consider canonical that were originally written in Greek and positively and affirmatively refer to creatures as "theos" or "theoi?"
"Origen thinks Matt was originally written in Hebrew FYI."
The fact that Origen "thought" so does not prove that it was, and even if it were, it does not follow that it must have included the Tetragrammaton. For example, in the OT, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs were undeniably written in Hebrew, yet they do not contain the Tetragrammaton.
"John 10:34-35 - has nothing to do with divinity… the original question is was he the Christ?"
The fact that this was the "ORIGINAL question" does not mean that divinity was not discussed. But this was not the issue; the issue was that you use Christ's citation to suggest that the NT recognizes the category of "created theos," and I responded to that.
@Nincsnevem,
Harner was the first post-Colwell theologian that I'm aware of to suggest that θεος is "qualitative" at John 1:1c (others had proposed similar views before the years of the embarrassing Colwell blunder). He was correct that Θεος at John 1:1c should not be regarded as definite, but he was mistaken on a number of points, but most significantly with respect to two critical assertions he made, one explicitly and one at least implied:
(1) Contra Harner, it is not true that simply placing a noun before the verb causes a shift in meaning that rules out use of the indefinite article; and
(2) it is also not true that nouns used descriptively shouldn't be rendered into English with the indefinite article.
Have you ever asked yourself why Harner left all the relevant Johannine texts in a footnote (other than John 1:1c, of course) and focused on non-Johannine texts in an attempt to buttress his thesis? That was a conspicuous anomaly. Normally, when one wants to understand a writer's usage or style, then one focuses on writings done by THAT writer, not the writings of some OTHER writer. However, Harner no doubt realized how hard it would be to promote his thesis if he were to focus on the Johannine texts, as ALL those in which the noun is comparable to θεος at John 1:1c are rendered into English with the indefinite article. (Note: For a noun to be comparable to θεος at John 1:1c, it must: (1) be singular, (2) be preverbal, (3) be anarthrous, (4) be a predicate nominative, (5) be count (not abstract/mass), (6) not be definite.)
Harner seems to have pulled the notion that descriptive nouns won't or shouldn't include the indefinite article ad hoc out of thin air. It may help to bear in mind that Harner's thesis seems to have emerged as an ad hoc solution to a problem that emerged once the false Colwell narrative collapsed. Once Trinitarians realized that they had misused Colwell's rule in that the rule doesn't actually favor one rendering over another, then they were left with a problem to solve. They didn't want to grant the "a god" rendering because they assumed that doing so would result in polytheism, and many no longer wanted to say that θεος is definite at John 1:1c, because they came to believe that a definite θεος there would undermine Trinity (e.g. it could result in Sabellianism). We don't have to speculate about this, because Dixon gave the game away in the introduction to his thesis:
"The importance of this thesis is clearly seen in the above example (John 1:1) where the doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity are at stake. For, if the Word was ‘a god,’ then by implication there are other gods of which Jesus is one. On the other hand, if [θεος] is just as definite as the articular construction following the verb because, ‘the dropping of the article…is simply a matter of word order,’ then the doctrine of the Trinity is denied." (The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John), p. 2
So, for Dixon, fidelity to Trinitarian theology dictated that an alternative to the two more natural understandings be found. I would suggest that the rejection of the "a god" rendering and preference for the traditional one is and has always been about such theological presuppositions as Dixon expressed, not about grammar, and certainly not about Johannine style and usage considerations, which overwhelmingly favor the "a god" rendering over against the traditional one.
Let me repeat that ***EVERY*** noun in GJohn that is comparable to θεος at John 1:1c is rendered into English by translators with the indefinite article, with one very lonely, theologically motivated exception: θεος at John 1:1c.
If we set aside the false assumptions and erroneous assertions made by partisans and focus on what the data reveal, we can see that it is overwhelmingly more likely that the "a god" rendering is correct over against the traditional one.
Nic - that debate has been going on for a long time and from many sides -
https://www.tyndalebulletin.org/article/30458-did-jesus-ever-teach-in-greek.pdf
https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9789004263406_04-EBRAISTI.pdf
Interestingly, can anyone here confirm that the same Passage from Josephus War of the Jews is in the Slavonic texts? There are many discrepancies, so it would be good to know that these actually agree on your point.
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0052.xml#:~:text=Traditionally%2C%20%E2%80%9CHellenistic%20Judaism%E2%80%9D%20was,of%20Alexander%20was%20Hellenistic%20Judaism.
In any case if Jesus is arguing from the Hebrew then the 3rd century CE LXX is hardly relevant. I so often here these arguments about an LXX that did not exist in the intertestimental period. We have many old Greek translation fragments but we do not have the legendary version to compare with. I think this is why Origen undertook this Hexpla- https://thetextualmechanic.blogspot.com/2020/04/origen-comparing-his-manuscripts-to.html
https://www.logos.com/grow/who-are-elohim/
@Sean Kasabuske
Let me offer you my note on John 1:1: https://justpaste.it/c7etj
By the way, do you ever know of a Bible translation where this was translated as "the Word was *THE God"? Because that would be the definite article reading, but this is not tenable.
Furthermore, it is strange to say the least that during the Arian debates in the 4th century, although there was much discussion about Proverbs 8:22, John 14:28, and Colossians 1:15, none of the sides were ever discussed neither John 1:1 nor Revelation 3:14.
@Sean Kasabuske
Phillip B. Harner's qualitative interpretation of "θεός" in John 1:1c is grounded in thorough linguistic analysis and is supported by the broader grammatical context of Greek predicate nouns. Your arguments misrepresent Harner’s methodology and the scholarly consensus on the qualitative nature of "θεός." The traditional rendering of John 1:1c as "the Word was God" accurately reflects the qualitative and contextual significance of the text, maintaining the theological and grammatical integrity of the passage.
His emphasis on the qualitative nature of "θεός" (theos) in John 1:1c is based on thorough linguistic and contextual analysis. His argument is that the qualitative force in Greek does not necessitate an indefinite article in English.
The qualitative interpretation means that "θεός" (theos) describes the nature or essence of the Logos as sharing in the divine nature. This is distinct from suggesting an indefinite article which implies a separate and lesser deity. The placement of "θεός" at the beginning of the clause emphasizes this qualitative aspect, making the indefinite article unnecessary and theologically misleading.
The claim that Harner avoided Johannine texts is incorrect. Harner included Johannine texts in his analysis but did not limit his study to them, providing a broader linguistic context. This method is sound as it ensures the conclusions are not overly narrow or biased by focusing on a single author’s usage.
The argument that theological motivations drove the rejection of the "a god" rendering oversimplifies the scholarship involved. Harner provided linguistic and grammatical reasons for his interpretation. The qualitative nature of "θεός" reflects the unique theological and linguistic context of John’s Gospel, emphasizing the Word's full divinity without confusing it with modalism or polytheism.
Harner and subsequent scholars emphasized that the placement of the noun before the verb in Greek can significantly affect its interpretation. The qualitative force of "θεός" (theos) in John 1:1c arises from this syntactical structure, which highlights the nature of the Logos as sharing in the divine essence.
Greek syntax often uses anarthrous predicate nouns before the verb to emphasize qualities or attributes. For example, "θεός" (theos) in John 1:1c emphasizes the divine nature of the Logos rather than identifying the Logos as a distinct, lesser deity. This understanding aligns with the grammatical conventions of Koine Greek and is consistent with the broader context of John’s Gospel.
The qualitative nature of "θεός" in John 1:1c does not necessitate the use of an indefinite article in English. The use of the indefinite article ("a god") would imply a polytheistic understanding, which is contrary to the monotheistic theology of John's Gospel. Translating "θεός" as "God" without the indefinite article more accurately conveys the qualitative essence of the Logos. This translation emphasizes that the Logos shares in the divine nature without suggesting a separate or lesser deity.
Harner’s study did include Johannine texts as part of his broader analysis of qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns. His methodology was comprehensive, examining both Johannine and non-Johannine texts to provide a well-rounded linguistic analysis. The claim that Harner avoided Johannine texts is inaccurate. He analyzed various texts to ensure that his conclusions were not narrowly focused or biased by a single author’s usage.
The traditional interpretation of John 1:1c is grounded in sound grammatical and contextual analysis, not merely theological bias. Dixon's thesis acknowledges the theological implications but also emphasizes the grammatical rules that guide the interpretation. The qualitative reading of "θεός" avoids both polytheism and modalism, aligning with the monotheistic theology presented in John’s Gospel.
Harner did indeed focus on the qualitative significance of "θεός" in John 1:1c, arguing it expresses the nature of the Word rather than being definite or indefinite.
His use of non-Johannine texts is not an anomaly but a common scholarly practice to establish a broader linguistic pattern. This approach helps demonstrate that the qualitative force of anarthrous predicate nouns is a consistent feature in Koine Greek, not just limited to John's writings.
Harner also did consider Johannine usage; his conclusions are supported by numerous other scholars who found that qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns are a significant feature in John's writings.
Harner never claimed that the placement of a noun before the verb inherently rules out the use of the indefinite article. Instead, he argued that the position of "θεός" in John 1:1c primarily serves to express its qualitative nature.
The qualitative meaning of "θεός" is determined by its context and grammatical construction, not merely its position. In the context of John 1:1, the qualitative reading aligns with John's theological intent, emphasizing the nature of the Word as sharing the same divine essence as God without equating the Word with God in a one-to-one identity.
While English translations may use the indefinite article for clarity, this does not necessarily reflect the underlying Greek nuance. In Greek, a qualitative noun emphasizes the nature or essence of the subject, which can sometimes be obscured by using the indefinite article in English.
The decision to use or not use the indefinite article in translation is often a matter of capturing the original meaning as closely as possible. Translators sometimes avoid the indefinite article to prevent misunderstandings, particularly in theological contexts where nuances are crucial.
Harner's analysis is based on a detailed grammatical and contextual examination of Greek syntax. His conclusions about the qualitative force of "θεός" are drawn from linguistic patterns rather than theological presuppositions.
The qualitative interpretation of "θεός" in John 1:1c is supported by a broad consensus of scholars and aligns with John's theological context, where the emphasis is on the nature of the Word as sharing in the divine essence without implying polytheism or Sabellianism.
The context and theological significance of John 1:1c are unique, and the qualitative reading does not necessitate the use of the indefinite article in English. The qualitative force of "θεός" is crucial in maintaining the theological distinction and relationship between the Word and God, as indicated by the structure and flow of John's prologue.
@Sean Kasabuske
Dixon’s thesis carefully distinguishes between grammatical and theological arguments. He emphasizes the grammatical analysis of anarthrous predicate nominatives in John, providing statistical data to support his conclusions.
Dixon argues, “The rule does not say: an anarthrous predicate nominative which precedes the verb is definite. This is the converse of Colwell's rule and as such is not a valid inference”. He clarifies that Colwell’s rule, when properly understood, suggests that definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually lack the article, but this does not imply that all anarthrous predicate nominatives are definite.
Dixon’s study demonstrates that the qualitative nature of "θεός" in John 1:1c is supported by the context and usage within John's Gospel. He emphasizes that the qualitative interpretation is crucial to understanding the relationship between the Logos and God without implying polytheism or Sabellianism.
Dixon argues that “the qualitative force of the predicate is more prominent than its definiteness or indefiniteness”. He writes, “We may conclude three things about John 1:1. First, Colwell's rule cannot be applied to the verse as an argument for definiteness... our thesis demonstrates just the opposite, that anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are qualitative, 94% of occurrences”.
Paul Dixon’s thesis is based on a rigorous grammatical analysis and statistical examination of anarthrous predicate nominatives in the Gospel of John. His conclusions about the qualitative nature of "θεός" in John 1:1c are supported by substantial evidence and are not driven by theological biases. The argument that his work is merely an ad hoc solution to theological challenges is not supported by the detailed and methodical nature of his research.
Okay gentlemen, I am going to close this thread by tomorrow night at 12 am. Thanks.
"Dixon argues that 'the qualitative force of the predicate is more prominent than its definiteness or indefiniteness.'"
I would like to add that even in modern languages, the usage of the indefinite article varies significantly.
In English, for example, if you want to say you are a Black person, you simply say "I am Black," not "I am *a Black." However, in Romance languages like Spanish, saying "soy negro" would mean you're a person named "Negro," so you say "soy UN negro" instead.
Even within Germanic languages, there are differences. In English, you use the indefinite article in "I am a lawyer," but in German, you do not, so it's "Ich bin Rechtsanwalt," not "Ich bin *ein Rechtsanwalt."
Therefore, focusing on the existence of definite-indefinite nouns, instead of looking at whether the qualitative description "theos ēn ho logos" really means that John describes the Logos as a separate, lesser, created, only godlike entity, or not at all, because "ho logos ēn theIos" or "ho logos ēn theos" would have been suitable for the description of the former - as Harner well described it.
@Nincsnevem,
Given the abysmal track record of Trinitarian grammarians and commentators when it comes to John 1:1c (e.g. the embarrassing Colwell blunder), and given the fact that they make assertions that are not only false, but clearly and demonstrably false, your faith in their assertions about John 1:1c is misguided, and clearly driven by your commitment to Trinitarianism. I can't help you there, because that has to do with your *desire*, not with the relevant data.
I wouldn't want to be on your side of this argument. You have the patently and demonstrably false claims of partisans, while I have Johannine style and usage considerations as exemplified by common translation practice involving texts that are not theologically loaded, ALL of which support my understanding over yours.
I've already demonstrated that the two most important assertions Harner made against the “a god” rendering are demonstrably false:
1. Contrary to Harner, it is not true that if John wanted to say that the Logos was “a god” that he would have placed the noun after the verb rather than before the verb. This assertion is not only contradicted by Johannine usage and style generally speaking, but by EVERY RELEVANT EXAMPLE in John’s Gospel. Every noun that fits the criteria I presented in a previous post is rendered into English with the indefinite article by translators.
One of my favorite lines from a movie is when Batman said: It is not what you say that defines you, but what you do. Trinitarians SAY that preverbal anarthrous predicate nouns are qualitative and should not be rendered into English with the indefinite article when John 1:1c is the subject text, but what they DO is render ALL corresponding examples into English with the indefinite article.
2. Even if one were to set aside what one knows about the flexibility of word order in Greek -- we shouldn't set that aside, but even if one were to do so -- and grant that placing a noun before the verb causes it to become “qualitative,” that still wouldn’t rule out use of the indefinite article in translation. Why? Because in English indefinite nouns are used both categorically and descriptively (descriptively = qualitatively).
I presented an illustration on my site in which a quarterback is called “a MAN” by both his coach and his wife, where “a MAN” has the sense of “VERY manly.” Indeed, you could replace “a MAN” everywhere it appears in that illustration with “VERY manly” and you would not have changed the meaning of what is said at all. All you will have changed is the syntactical means by which the meaning is conveyed.
Thus, both of Harner’s assumptions against the “a god” rendering are DOA, while translation PRACTICE involving all relevant nouns in John overwhelmingly favors the NWT's rendering of John 1:1c.
@Nincsnevem,
As I noted above, one of the claims that P.B. Harner made in his article on qualitative nouns that appeared in the Journal of Biblical Literature is that if the writer of John’s Gospel wanted to call the Logos “a god” at John 1:1c, then he would have placed θεος after the verb. He was clearly mistaken about this, which I've demonstrated by drawing your attention to the fact that EVERY noun in GJohn that is comparable to θεος at 1:1c is rendered into English by translators with the indefinite article, and one of the criteria for tagging a noun as comparable is that it must appear before the verb (see criterion #2 = be preverbal).
In addition to the Johannine examples I provided above, we could add a text that appears at 1 Kings 18:27 (III Kings 18:27 in the LXX). There, in the LXX, the anarthrous nominative θεος appears before the verb εστιν, and it is appropriately rendered "a god" (see Brenton's LXX and NETS). So Harner's fanciful assertion doesn’t even hold true when the noun in question is θεος!
@Nincsnevem,
"Harner and subsequent scholars emphasized that the placement of the noun before the verb in Greek can significantly affect its interpretation. The qualitative force of "θεός" (theos) in John 1:1c arises from this syntactical structure, which highlights the nature of the Logos as sharing in the divine essence."
Correction: They *asserted* that placement of the noun before the verb in Greek can significantly impact interpretation, but I've already shown that they were mistaken about that, as one can see by simply looking at how they translate nouns that are comparable to θεός at John 1:1c, ALL OF WHICH ARE RENDERED WITH THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE IN JOHN.
Anyone who actually works with the Greek text knows how flexible word order is. Wallace has argued that the same simple sentence, "John loves Mary" (or something like that), can be worded about 3,000 different ways in Greek, and one of the reasons for that is the flexibility of word order. As he himself illustrated, in Greek you could say, "John loves Mary," or "Mary John loves," or "loves John Mary," or "loves Mary John," etc., with no significant difference in meaning. Yet, in his grammar, Wallace parrots Harner's assertions about what the different sentence structures would signify, and Harner's assertion about the significance of the construction we find at John 1:1c directly contradicts what we observe about the flexibility of word order.
It is incoherent to assert that word order is so flexible that you can say the same thing 3,000 different ways without any significant shift in meaning, and then to turn around and argue that a dramatic shift in meaning occurred at John 1:1c simply because the noun is placed before the verb. These folks would better serve their readers if they were to simply grant that the "a god" rendering is well supported based on grammar and Johannine usage considerations, and to argue for their preferred alternative on theological grounds. However, their blind commitment to Trinitarianism distorts their judgment, and so they keep making flawed assumptions and assertions.
@Nincsnevem,
"Paul Dixon’s thesis is based on a rigorous grammatical analysis and statistical examination of anarthrous predicate nominatives in the Gospel of John. His conclusions about the qualitative nature of "θεός" in John 1:1c are supported by substantial evidence and are not driven by theological biases. The argument that his work is merely an ad hoc solution to theological challenges is not supported by the detailed and methodical nature of his research."
I've read his thesis, and you're simply mistaken. He was clearly motivated by a controlling theological bias, so much so that he reached the fanciful conclusion that there is only one solitary indefinite noun in all of John's Gospel! I don't know how he managed to submit that patent nonsense to his thesis advisors with a straight face, but then his advisors were on the faculty of DTS, an institution that one can't even attend unless one affirms Trinitarianism, so that may partially explain it.
Two additional problems with both Harner's article and Dixon's thesis are (1), neither of them were trained linguists, and it shows, and (2) their partisan presentations never received proper vetting by qualified linguists. If one wants to argue for a new understanding of an ancient language, then one doesn't submit biased and unsophisticated articles and theses to JBL or DTS. Rather, one submits rigorously presented argumentation to the appropriate peer-reviewed journals so that they can be subjected to scrutiny by people who are qualified to make informed judgments about what is argued.
@Nincsnevem,
"His use of non-Johannine texts is not an anomaly but a common scholarly practice to establish a broader linguistic pattern. This approach helps demonstrate that the qualitative force of anarthrous predicate nouns is a consistent feature in Koine Greek, not just limited to John's writings."
No, it was definitely an anomaly. If one wants to reach an informed judgment about what a writer likely meant in offering a specific grammatical construction, then it is THAT writer's style and usage that is of prominent importance. Harner ignored all of the relevant Johannine texts precisely because he could clearly see that he would have a hard time getting people to swallow his argument using the Johannine texts, as ALL RELEVANT EXAMPLES in GJohn have the indefinite article in English.
With that said, his use of other writers was no better, and his (ab)use of Mark 15:39 was a howler! Rather than spoil the fun, I'll encourage you to re-read what he said about Mark 15:39 and see if you can guess what suggestion he offered that made me spill my coffee laughing:-)
But let's take a look at Mark 5:39:
Greek: οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος Υἱὸς Θεοῦ ἦν
Interlinear: this man son of god was
I see six possibilities with respect to translation:
1. this man was the son of God
2. this man was God's son
3. this man was a son of God
4. this man was the son of a god
5. this man was a god's son
6. this man was a son of a god
Most translators have historically favored #1, which I find rather curious, given that the words were uttered by a Roman Centurion. By choosing #1, it would seem that their decision process was either:
a. shaped by their own Judeo-Christian understanding of who Jesus was; or
b. shaped by the assumption that the utterance is non-historical, and that Mark placed a Jewish understanding on the Centurion's lips for Christological purposes.
What happens, though, if we take the utterance to be historical, and allow the Roman cultural context to shape what the Centurion likely said?
In my judgment, we would then have to favor number 4, 5, or 6, as it would seem unlikely that 1, 2, or 3 would have occurred to him, unless he was sneaking out at night to hang out with Jesus and his disciples;-)
Interestingly, David Bentley Hart went with #5 in his translation of the NT:
"Truly this man was a god's son."
This is one of the reasons I often prefer the renderings of different texts done by individuals, who can complete their work without having to defer to a majority, and in doing so get it right.
@Nincsnevem,
Interestingly, Paul Dixon categorized every preverbal anarthrous predicate count noun below as "qualitative" in his DTS thesis, but notice how ALL translators render them into English.
EVERY ONE OF THEM was dubbed qualitative by Dixon, yet EVERY ONE OF THEM is properly rendered into English with the indefinite article.
1. John 4:19
Greek: προφητης ει συ
Interlinear: prophet are you
Translation: “you are a prophet” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
2. John 6:70
Greek: διαβολος εστιν
Interlinear: devil is
Translation: “is a devil” (NRSV)
3. John 8:34
Greek: δουλος εστιν
Interlinear: slave is
Translation: “is a slave” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
4. John 8:44
Greek: ανθρωποκτονος ην
Interlinear: manslayer was
Translation: “was a murderer” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
5. John 8:44
Greek: ψευστης εστιν
Interlinear: liar he is
Translation: “he is a liar” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
6. John 8:48a
Greek: σαμαριτης ει συ
Interlinear: Samaritan are you
Translation: “you are a Samaritan” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
7. John 9:8
Greek: προσαιτης ην
Interlinear: beggar was
Translation: “as a beggar” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
8. John 9:17
Greek: προφητης εστιν
Interlinear: prophet he is
Translation: “He is a prophet” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
9. John 9:24
Greek: αμαρτωλος εστιν
Interlinear: sinner is
Translation: “is a sinner” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
10. John 9:25
Greek: αμαρτωλος εστιν
Interlinear: sinner he is
Translation: “he is a sinner” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
11. John 10:1
Greek: κλεπτης εστιν
Interlinear: thief is
Translation: “is a thief” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
12. John 10:13
Greek: μισθωτος εστιν
Interlinear: hired hand he is
Translation: “he is a hired hand” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
13. John 12:6
Greek: κλεπτης ην
Interlinear: thief he was
Translation: “he was a thief” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
14. John 18:35
Greek: μητι εγω ιουδαιος ειμι
Interlinear: Not I Jew am
Translation: “I am not a Jew” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
15. John 18:37a
Greek: βασιλευς ει συ
Interlinear: king are you?
Translation: “you are a king?” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
16. John 18:37b
Greek: βασιλευς ειμι εγω
Interlinear: king am I
Translation: “I am a king” (NET Bible, NRSV, Etc.)
BTW, I have a multi-part series on my own blog in which I expose some of the misinformation spread by Harner and Dixon and others. I'm very familiar with their work and with its many patent flaws.
ILLUSTRATION - PART 1: In English, an Indefinite Noun is the Perfect Tool to use for Conveying Descriptive Stress
The quarterback of the local football team is really quite a fellow. He’s a great leader, he endures pain and adversity well, he is confident, intelligent, and has the physical appearance of Frank Zane (former Mr. Olympia). He broke his collarbone during the first quarter of a game, yet he still managed to help the team pull off a victory! He is the reason his team is headed for the playoffs this year. After the game is over, his coach and physical trainer both approach him and express how grateful they are to have such an excellent quarterback. The quarterback offers a humble “Thank you, sirs, I’m proud to be on your team and to work with such high-caliber athletes and leadership,” and then heads for the shower. As he is leaving the coach turns to the physical trainer and says, “He is a MAN! I wish we had more like him.”
On his way home from the hospital, the quarterback stops and picks a single rose for his wife. He walks through the door of his home, hands the rose to her, gives her an emphatic kiss accompanied by a one-armed hug, and says “I love you.” Later that evening, after telling his wife about the game and how he broke his collarbone, the two of them sit down and watch a movie. During one poignant scene the wife notices that her husband is wiping tears from his eyes. She smiles, and starts to think about her man. He is loving, gentle, sensitive, and despite the fact that she is more intelligent than he is (she’s a brilliant corporate lawyer with an IQ 30 points higher than his), he’s never shown any sign that this negatively impacts his self-esteem. She runs her fingers through his hair, gives him a big, warm kiss, and says: “You are a MAN! What did I ever do to deserve you?”
The phone rings and the wife answers it to let her hubby rest. The coach is on the other end of the line, and tells the wife how her husband played most of the game that day with a broken collarbone, yet still managed to pull off a victory. After chatting about the quarterback and the game for a while, the coach says, “Your husband is a MAN! Never let him go!” The wife replied, “Yes, he truly is a MAN” and smiles at her husband.
Notice that “a MAN” in these examples is indistinguishable in terms of meaning from the words “VERY manly.” Indeed, you can replace “a MAN” in each example sentence above with “VERY manly” and you will not change the sense of what is being said at all. All you will have changed is the syntactical means by which the meaning is conveyed.
This means that in these examples the qualities of the man are more important than whether “MAN” is definite or indefinite. Notice that I deliberately borrowed Harner’s expression, here, i.e. “more important than whether…,” and since this is demonstrably true, it means that, contra Harner, Dixon, and some others, an indefinite noun is actually the perfect tool for conveying the very “qualitativeness” that he and Dixon asserted that anarthrous predicate nouns that occur before the verb convey. The only real reason Trinitarians won’t agree is because such a rendering is deemed theologically problematic. I would suggest that the rejection of the “a god” rendering does not now nor has it ever had anything to do with grammar, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
ILLUSTRATION - PART 2: Addendum
I’ll now offer a final observation about indefinite nouns that are used descriptively, and the quarterback who was “a MAN” (= VERY manly).
Some have argued that since θεος is being used descriptively at John 1:1c, this must mean that the Son has all the properties of God. I would suggest that this is but another theologically-motivated assumption, and it isn’t necessary at all.
How can we demonstrate this? Notice that, in the illustration above about a very manly quarterback, I developed his manliness from two perspectives, that of his coach and that of his wife. Did you notice how very different characteristics informed each person’s recognition of the quarterback’s manliness?
The Coach: When the coach thought about how the quarter back was VERY manly, he was thinking about the fellow’s ability to tolerate pain, his leadership skills, his unwavering commitment to the team, his physical prowess, and his humility. The coach didn’t know and didn’t care about how sensitive the guy was.
The Wife: When the wife thought about how the quarterback was VERY manly, she was thinking about how thoughtful, loving, secure, and sensitive her husband was. The attributes that informed the coaches impression didn’t even enter her mind in this context, and so they weren’t part of the meaning of “a MAN” in the context of her contemplations.
In short, two different people can think of someone as “a MAN,” that is to say, as someone who is VERY manly, yet not necessarily have in mind all of the man’s manly characteristics, and certainly not all characteristics that might constitute manliness in general. This means that one can’t assume that a noun that is used descriptively is necessarily applied in an exhaustive way. One must infer the full sense in which the Logos was “a god” by considering John’s Gospel as a whole, the New Testament, the Old Testament, ancient Judaism(s), and the thought categories that informed these writings.
Taking into account the narrower and broader theological environment is not important because of some kind of "trinitarianism", but because of monotheism, because it does not matter what such a structure is claimed to be about.
Your examples of anarthrous predicate nouns being translated with an indefinite article do not parallel John 1:1c in theological context. The assertion that all comparable nouns are rendered with the indefinite article in John's Gospel is misleading. The specific theological and syntactical context of John 1:1c demands the traditional rendering, because it does really matter whether we claim that someone is a slave, a demon, etc., or that they are God, because we know from elsewhere that there is only one.
The translation "a god" would imply polytheism (or at last monolatric henotheism), which contradicts both Jewish monotheism and early Christian belief. The consistent worship of Jesus as God (e.g., John 20:28) further supports the traditional understanding of John 1:1c.
The claim of an "embarrassing Colwell blunder" is misleading. Colwell's rule, which states that a definite predicate nominative preceding the verb lacks the article, supports the traditional translation. This rule has been widely validated and is a cornerstone of NT Greek grammar.
Harner's analysis in "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns" is sound and widely respected. His assertion that θεός in John 1:1c is qualitative, describing the nature of the Word, aligns with the context of John's Gospel and does not necessitate an indefinite article. The claim that Harner and others were mistaken about the impact of noun placement before the verb ignores the context of their assertions. They specifically noted that this syntactical structure highlights the qualitative nature of θεός in John 1:1c, not merely any noun.
While Greek word order is indeed flexible, it doesn't imply that word order is insignificant. In John 1:1c, placing θεός before the verb emphasizes the nature of the Logos as fully divine, a nuance supported by context and scholarly analysis, not negated by examples of flexibility.
The works of Harner and Dixon has been examined and discussed by numerous scholars in the field of biblical studies. It’s not uncommon for groundbreaking work in ancient languages to be conducted by experts in related fields. Furthermore, the peer review process at institutions like DTS and journals like JBL ensures a level of scholarly rigor and scrutiny.
Dixon’s conclusion about the rarity of indefinite nouns in John's Gospel should be seen in the context of his overall statistical findings. It's not an arbitrary claim but a result of his systematic analysis. Critiquing this point requires engaging with his data and methodology rather than dismissing it outright.
Utilizing non-Johannine texts is a common scholarly practice to establish broader linguistic patterns in Koine Greek. This method helps demonstrate the consistency of grammatical features across different authors, not just John. The consistency in the qualitative force of anarthrous predicate nouns is crucial for understanding the Greek language's usage, thus providing a more comprehensive view than limiting the analysis only to the Johannine texts.
By the way, why do you rule out that the centurion was led to a deeper insight by the grace of God? Such descriptions serve precisely to ensure that the gospel is also open to Gentiles, who were able to gain insight into Christian truth even without prior knowledge of Jewish religion. While considering the Roman cultural context is valid, most translators choose "this man was the son of God" due to the theological significance in the context of the Gospel and early Christian belief. The translation favored by the majority reflects the theological intent and the evangelist's perspective, aligning with the overall message of the Gospel, which presents Jesus as THE Son of God.
The use of an indefinite article in English translations does not negate the qualitative force of the Greek predicate nominative. Translators aim to convey meaning clearly in English, which often (but not always) necessitates using the indefinite article. This does not change the inherent qualitative nature of the Greek term. In Greek, anarthrous predicate nominatives before the verb emphasize the qualitative nature of the noun. This emphasis is consistent with the qualitative understanding, regardless of how it is rendered for clarity in English.
While the examples you’ve given render the nouns with an indefinite article, this does not undermine the qualitative interpretation in the original Greek. In Johannine style, the emphasis is on the nature or quality of the subject. Translators often use the indefinite article to ensure readability and coherence in English, but this practice does not diminish the qualitative nature emphasized in Greek.
Each provided example should be understood in its immediate context. For instance, John 4:19 ("you are a prophet") reflects the qualitative nature of Jesus being recognized as one who possesses prophetic qualities. But there is obviously more than one prophet, while there is only one God, which is why your example is misleading. The use of the indefinite article in English is a matter of grammatical necessity, not a change in the qualitative emphasis of the original Greek text.
Your critique that Harner and Dixon's works are flawed due to theological bias overlooks the rigorous grammatical analysis they conducted. Their conclusions are based on linguistic evidence, not merely theological presuppositions. The consistent qualitative interpretation of similar constructions in John’s Gospel supports Harner’s view. Broader linguistic patterns observed in Koine Greek align with this understanding. Using examples from other Greek texts is not anomalous but rather a method to establish broader linguistic norms. This approach underscores that the qualitative force of anarthrous predicate nouns is a recognized feature in Koine Greek, extending beyond John's writings.
The illustration given compares the use of the indefinite noun "a MAN" to demonstrate qualitative emphasis, arguing that it is similar to the qualitative use of "θεός" in John 1:1c. Here’s why this comparison fails:
The examples of "a MAN" in the story are set in a non-theological, everyday context where "a MAN" naturally conveys qualities of masculinity. In contrast, John 1:1c is in a highly theological context. Here, the interpretation of "θεός" directly impacts the understanding of Jesus' divinity, not just a qualitative descriptor but a statement of essence and identity.
Translating "θεός" as "a god" within a monotheistic context implies polytheism (or at least monolatric henotheism), conflicting with the Jewish and early Christian belief in one God. The indefinite article introduces theological implications not present in the "a MAN" illustration.
In Greek, anarthrous predicate nouns before the verb emphasize the quality of the noun. For example, saying “you are a prophet” highlights the nature of the person as having the qualities of a prophet. In John 1:1c, "θεός" placed before the verb emphasizes the divine nature of the Logos, not suggesting a separate deity but highlighting shared essence with God.
In Greek, word order and the presence or absence of the article convey nuanced meanings. The qualitative aspect of "θεός" in John 1:1c does not translate directly to an indefinite article in English due to theological implications and the broader monotheistic context.
The assertion that rejecting "a god" is purely theological ignores the comprehensive grammatical and contextual analysis supporting the traditional rendering. Scholars across various theological perspectives uphold this rendering based on a thorough understanding of Greek grammar and the theological consistency required by the broader biblical context.
The analogy of the quarterback's manliness being recognized differently by the coach and wife fails to account for the monotheistic framework of John’s Gospel. "θεός" (theos) in John 1:1c is not just about recognizing different aspects of divinity; it’s about defining the nature of Jesus within a monotheistic belief system. John's Gospel clearly emphasizes Jesus' divine nature in a unique and exclusive sense (e.g., John 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God").
The analogy implies that describing Jesus as "a god" does not necessitate attributing all divine qualities to Him. However, in the context of John 1:1c, where "θεός" is used, it is not about partial or different aspects but about affirming Jesus' full participation in the divine essence. The broader context of John's Gospel and the New Testament consistently emphasizes the unique and full divinity of Jesus (e.g., John 1:14, 18; Colossians 2:9).
Translating "θεός" as "a god" in John 1:1c would introduce polytheistic or henotheistic notions, contrary to the Jewish and early Christian monotheistic framework. Theological context is crucial. John’s Gospel and other New Testament writings affirm Jesus' unique relationship with the Father, making "a god" an inappropriate rendering that undermines the monotheistic doctrine (e.g., Isaiah 44:6, Deuteronomy 6:4).
The examples provided of other indefinite nouns in Greek do not parallel the theological and syntactical weight carried by "θεός" in John 1:1c. Thus, the comparison is invalid. Your illustration fails to address the unique theological and grammatical context of John 1:1c. The traditional rendering, "the Word was God," remains the most contextually and theologically consistent translation, reflecting the unique divinity of Jesus within a monotheistic framework.
By the way, why don't you address the fact that countless WTS publications argue that since according to John 1:1b "the Word was with [the] God", it cannot be God, because the Word cannot be "the same person" with whom it was? Why, which Trinitarian asserted that the Word, by being spoken of as God, thereby became the same person with whom he was?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983884
"Then John said: “The Word was with God.” A person who is with someone obviously is not the same as the one he is with."
By the way, this article ironically even refers to the Athanasian Creed, it should have been read properly, instead of resorting to such nonsense reasoning:
"And the Catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy "Ghost."
The only thing I’ll note about the Mark passage is Harners thesis may have some weight when considering the parallel passages - Harners right in the fact it is not an explicit identification ( see the parallel in Luke) of Christ, the Roman soldier clearly means something about Jesus’ character ( likely he was the Christ or something similar)
And Ninc -wheee in the OT are angels, Judges etc called Elohim in the positive sense? ( I assume you mean a god you should worship)
Because I again. I assert in both testaments “a god” when used of angels or Judges is used to denote an office/ position - which is not positive or negative
Satan is called “ho theos” but is modified by a genitive -however Paul probably means “ruler”
( see Vines and strongs or any dictionary really )
“ that John describes the Logos as a separate, lesser, created, only godlike entity” - and yet when we add the CF with their Explicit identification of Jesus as Wisdom
Origen even says he is “by nature not a different person from Wisdom”
And cites the texts in the NT that make these identifications
And Clement using Logos and Wisdom and possibly son interchangeably
Justin martyr even calls Logos a second god, besides the creator of all things… so even Justin doesn’t think Jesus is the creator ( despite hebrews1:10)
+ the rest of the evidence
Yeah your on the backfoot
2 quotes from tetullian ( I have some from Augustine aswell, just reverse google search for context:
call to mind along with them the passage where it is written, “I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are children of the Most High;” and again, “God standeth in the congregation of gods in order that, if the Scripture has not been afraid to designate as gods human beings
Now this Word, the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, must be the very Son of God. So that, if (He did) all things by the Son, He must have stretched out the heavens by the Son, and so not have stretched them out alone, except in the sense in which He is “alone” (and apart) from all other gods.
A final word on Mark 15:39
Harner argues that "Son" is "qualitative" at Mark 15:39; yet, ironically, if that's true, it is precisely because the Centurion contemplated Jesus' sonship through Roman eyes, not because the noun is placed before the verb. On the other hand, if, as most translations would lead one to believe, the Centurion said "God's Son," as in the Son of the one God of the Bible, then "Son" would more naturally be informed by the Jewish understanding, which was functional, not ontological, in its significance.
In answer to the question, “What does ‘Son of God’ mean in Mark’s Gospel?”, Thomas P. Rausch observed that:
“It would be difficult to conclude that Jesus in Mark’s Gospel is Son of God in more than an adopted or declared sense. There is no virginal conception in Mark, no Christmas story. Jesus is the beloved of God, the Messiah and Suffering Servant who would be revealed as God’s Son. He is Son of God in a functional rather than a metaphysical sense.” (Who is Jesus? An Introduction to Christology), p. 133
After considering 5 key verses in Mark’s Gospel, and noting that Son of God “connotes divine appointment rather than divine nature” (quoting Robert Gundry from his Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, p. 909), Roger Haight concludes that:
“…[M]essiahship defines Jesus’ status as Son of God in functional rather than metaphysical categories. It should not be construed in the sense it gained by the time of the patristic christological debates.'” (Jesus: Symbol of God), p. 161
Similarly, John Ziesler, in his Pauline Christianity, elaborates on the biblical and 1st Century Jewish concept of sonship:
“By the Second Century, it [Son of God] came to refer to Jesus Christ as divine, but originally it was not a particularly lofty title. It is not the same as God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. Though it was not particularly common, it could be used of human beings, both in the Jewish and in the Greek world…(Hos. 11:1; Exod. 4:22; Isa. 43:6; 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; Gen. 6:2,4; Duet 32:8; Wisd. 2:10-20; 5:1-5)…Such ascriptions did not mean that the nation or the king or the righteous man was genetically related to God. Israel rejected any idea of that. Rather, being Son of God meant obedient service to God on the one hand, and divine commissioning and endorsement on the other. In our society we tend to forget that the first thing about a son was that he obeyed his father; therefore calling Jesus Christ Son of God meant first of all that he did what God wanted. He was the obedient one… …Paul’s use of the title reflects Jewish rather than pagan background.” (pp. 41, 42)
Such quotes could no doubt be multiplied many times over by one who has spent some time with the relevant literature. When the Centurion realized, based on God's response to Jesus' death, that Jesus was the Son of God or a god, it may very well be the case that he too simply realized that Jesus' life had been lived in "obedient service to God [or a god] on the one hand, and divine commissioning and endorsement on the other." The later would be the most prominent in the minds of the observers since it was heaven's response that informed the realization about who Jesus was. This would be consistent with Luke's portrayal, where the Centurion declares that Jesus δίκαιος ἦν (= "was innocent" ~ ESV, or "was a righteous man" ~ NIV). Can "Son" at Mark 15:39 be properly construed to be "qualitative"? Maybe so, maybe not, but if it is, that would be the case whether the noun occurred before or after the verb, because it would be the Roman view of divine sonship that implied such a sense, not the placement of the noun before the verb.
@Nincsnevem,
One thing I am curious about, other than the name that hides behind the pseudonym, is why you're here? I've never met someone who frequents a blog for no other reason than to constantly argue against the views of the blogger.
Are you a former student of Edgar?
"The claim of an "embarrassing Colwell blunder" is misleading. Colwell's rule, which states that a definite predicate nominative preceding the verb lacks the article, supports the traditional translation. This rule has been widely validated and is a cornerstone of NT Greek grammar."
You don't know what you're talking about. The rule lacks the ability to favor any translation over another, because it doesn't even come into play as an analytical tool until one has already determined that a noun is definite, and then all it speaks to is the statistical probability of the presence or absence of the article.
It seems that you haven't read Dixon's thesis, as he spells this out clearly. Odd that you are here endorsing a thesis you haven't even read.
BTW, you left a word out of Colwell's rule. Remember which one?
"Your critique that Harner and Dixon's works are flawed due to theological bias overlooks the rigorous grammatical analysis they conducted."
There was no rigorous grammatical analysis in either Harner's article or Dixon's thesis. Neither of them were linguists, and both of them were desperately and carelessly doing damage control in response to the collapse of the false Colwell narrative, and made a lot of mistakes along the way. Harner simply ignored ALL relevant texts in John, while Dixon made a feeble attempt to restructure reality to fit his theology. They both were very much like partisan politicians who spin false narratives to support their preferred worldview.
@Nincsnevem,
You're zeal is making you careless (a common problem with Trinitarians [friendly grin]).
You said:
"Colwell's rule, which states that a definite predicate nominative preceding the verb lacks the article, supports the traditional translation."
But you previously said:
"John 1:1c cannot be definite because saying 'and the Logos WAS *the God' would imply that the Son is identical with the Father (Sabellianism, Modalism) or with the entire Trinity, which would be heretical according to Nicene Christology."
Yet Colwell's rule, which you say supports the "traditional translation," if applicable to John 1:1c, would mean that QEOS is definite there.
In other words, you've just inadvertently admitted that the traditional translation is incorrect.
Sean - reverse google search Nincs just justpaste links, they are on other websites aswell
At least that’s what the results show for me
Definite = identification
Indefinite = catergory or quality
This is a general rule of thumb with some exceptions
Ninc is trying to make a quality of something an identification… not going to work
Dixon a thesis refutes nincs own argument
This thread is now closed.
This thread is now closed.
From Sean:
Begin Quote
A final comment about Colwell’s rule
The blunder wasn't in believing that the rule is valid; rather, it was in believing that it invalidates the "a god" rendering, which it not only doesn’t do, but it doesn’t even have the capability to do so.
What some of the biggest names in the business did, like Metzger, Bruce, Barclay, and others, was assume that the converse of the rule were true. In other words, they read that "definite predicate nouns that precede the verb usually lack the article" and assumed that "anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb are definite." Not only did they restructure the rule in their minds in an invalid way, but they omitted the word “usually” completely.
The rule itself seems to be valid, but it lacks the ability to favor one translation over another. The converse of the rule is not valid, yet that is what "scholars" used to criticize the NWT's rendering of John 1:1c in some of the most over-the-top unchristian terms imaginable. It was an amateurish mistake that any first year student of logic should have recognized, yet Trinitarians, chronically blinded by the presupposition of Trinitarianism, misused the rule and, for decades, sent lay and educated people alike down a rabbit hole with a dead end.
It was not the “orthodox” academic community’s finest moment! This is why I stress that one must focus on *the data* when it comes to this theologically loaded text. As I’ve said several times, the data, including Johannine style and context, overwhelmingly favor the NTW’s rendering over against the traditional one.
End Quote
Post a Comment